Strengthening NGO Accountability through Beneficiary. Participation: Lessons Learned from Two Cambodian NGOs. NGIN Chanrithï¼. Abstract. Now that NGOs ...
『国際開発研究フォーラム』25（2004. 2） Forum of International Development Studies, 25（Feb. 2004）
Strengthening NGO Accountability through Beneficiary Participation: Lessons Learned from Two Cambodian NGOs
NGIN Chanrith＊ Abstract Now that NGOs are inclined to better identify and respond to beneficiary needs so as to secure program accountability, this paper addresses the role of beneficiary participation performed in this quest. Grounded on an analysis of two development projects in Cambodia, the study asserts that ability of beneficiaries to hold NGOs accountable in this stance seems to be determined by a ‘meaningful’ participation process which emphasizes their early inclusion (i.e., from the identification phase) and ‘broad’ involvement, and which most of all provides greater essence to ‘transformative’ mechanisms (i.e., shared decision making, collaboration and empowerment). In furtherance, the data appear that ‘seniority’ and ‘organizational affiliation’ instill emphatic determination on the accountability-demanding ability.
1. Introduction Following development failures of governments in the 1980s, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have increasingly become an alternative vehicle for bi- and multi-lateral donors engaged in international development efforts since the 1990s (see, e.g., Korten, 1990; Clark, 1991; Carroll, 1992; Edwards & Hulme, 1992, 1995, 1996). There are presently at least 50,000 NGOs in developing countries, funded with more than US$10 billion by international financial institutions and developed nations (Petras & Veltmeyer, 2001). Underlying this preference is an intuitive assertion of ‘panacea’ quality contained within NGOs in ameliorating grassroots pauperization in the third world. The notion of NGOs as a ‘magic bullet’ for poverty reduction, however, stands no longer unchallenged. The myth of NGO infallibility has been constantly unmasked by a mismatch between idealism and pragmatism and an inconsistency between rhetoric and reality. Consequently, NGOs have been called for better organizational and program accountability so as to scale up ‘sustainable development impact’ at the grassroots level (see, e.g., Edwards & Hulme, 1995; ICFCB, 1998). As for organizational accountability, the discipline of capacity building has been of vitality among the NGO community and its external environment.1 NGOs are demanded to acquire professionalism in terms of organizational capacity. Meanwhile, they are under soaring pressure to better identify and respond to actual needs and interests of intended ‘beneficiaries’2 in order to maintain program accountability. Participation of beneficiaries in projects has long been reckoned as a core in ensuring program ＊Doctoral Student, 6SID, Nagoya University. The author gratefully acknowledges critical comments of Prof. OKADA Aya and her seminar class, Prof. WAKABAYASHI Mitsuru, Prof. NISHIMURA Yoshihiko, and two anonymous referees.
−183−
Strengthening NGO Accountability through Beneficiary Participation: accountability (e.g., Shah & Shah, 1995; Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Blair, 2000; Fowler, 2000; Long, 2001; Kolavalli & Kerr, 2002). Notwithstanding, despite such a consensus, how actually beneficiaries can influence NGOs’ interventions for better program accountability in the participation process often remains imprecise in the contemporary literature. This paper examines the role of beneficiary participation in influencing NGOs to respond to beneficiaries’ genuine needs and interests. Specifically, it addresses the question: What determines ability of beneficiaries to hold NGOs accountable in terms of responding to their needs and interests in the process of participation? To answer the above research question, this paper commences with a brief review on the relationship between beneficiary accountability and participation in the context of development NGOs. The paper then conceptualizes a framework for dealing with this relationship and finally field tests the framework with two development projects of two Cambodian NGOs. The following section reviews the linkage between NGO accountability to beneficiaries and beneficiary participation, focusing on beneficiary ‘voice’ articulated in the process of participation.
2. NGO Accountability, Beneficiary ‘Voice’ and Participation: A Review of Literature 2.1. A Model of NGO Accountability to Beneficiaries While there are various different conceptions of accountability, this study applied an operational definition derived from Kearns (1996) and Cutt and Murray (2000), which considers beneficiary accountability: ‘A process in which a provider organization responds to the needs of beneficiaries based on claimed mandates of responsibility.’ A commonly used model of accountability developed by Hirschman (1970) and further elaborated by Paul (1992) asserts that beneficiary accountability can be ensured when ‘control’ is augmented with ‘exit’ (i.e., the ability of beneficiaries to find alternative service providers) and ‘voice’ (i.e., the ability of beneficiaries to influence performance of the provider without seeking alternative providers). In the prevalent context of NGOs, exercising ‘exit’ is not realistically feasible for beneficiaries as NGOs usually operate in resource-scarce environments where needs are greater than supply3 (Brett, 1993; Najam, 1996; Lewis, 2001). Expressing ‘voice’, thus, may be the only option for beneficiaries to influence NGOs’ interventions to meet their needs and interests. Revision of the literature to date unveils that in order for beneficiaries to articulate ‘voice’, they need to be accessible to information regarding NGOs’ resources and activities and to participate ‘meaningfully’ in the development process.
2.2. Beneficiary Need for Information to Exercise ‘ Voice’ Experience from development projects discloses that to be able to assert ‘voice’ requires beneficiaries to have access to information on implementing agencies’ resources and activities
−184−
(Kolavalli & Kerr, 2002; Long, 2001; Jenkins & Goetz, 1998 in Lewis, 2001; Chambers, 1983, 1997; Brett, 1993). Beneficiaries are placed in a position in which their ability to influence inappropriate or undesirable interventions is limited when they are ill-informed about NGOs’ activities (Chambers, 1983, 1997; Brett, 1993). Yet, in reality, development beneficiaries get minimal access to information concerning agencies’ resources and activities (Long, 2001; Petras & Veltmeyer, 2001; Cutt & Murray, 2000; Craig & Porter, 1997; Brett, 1993). We can accordingly concede that access to information involving NGOs’ resources and activities is the prerequisite for enabling beneficiaries to ensure NGOs account for meeting their needs and interests.
2.3. Beneficiary Need for ‘ Meaningful’ Participation to Exercise ‘ Voice’ There is a consensus that the only way for beneficiaries to exert their ‘voice’ is partake in the development process. It is conceptually agreed that through participation processes in all phases of project cycle beneficiaries would be able to articulate their needs and interests to implementing agencies (e.g., Shah & Shah, 1995; Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Blair, 2000; Fowler, 2000; Long, 2001; Kolavalli & Kerr, 2002). However, despite their democratic, grassroots rhetoric, NGOs are hierarchical and in practice beneficiaries rarely partake in all project stages (e.g., Tendler, 1982; Najam, 1996; Craig & Porter, 1997; Edwards, Hulme & Wallace, 2000; Petras & Veltmeyer, 2001; Smillie & Hailey, 2001). If beneficiaries do take part at all, their participation is dominant in implementation stage but quite limited in other stages, particularly in identification and planning phases (Tendler, 1982). Moreover, the poor are often marginally involved in participation processes where local elite (i.e., the relatively well-off or more powerful, and at times males) influence or control programs (Tendler, 1982; Craig & Porter, 1997; Fowler, 1997; Lewis, 2001; Agarwal, 2001). Worse, the process of need definition (if any) is often subjective and manipulated by NGOs (Najam, 1996; Craig & Porter, 1997; Petras & Veltmeyer, 2001; Smillie & Hailey, 2001). Participation very often means nothing more than asking beneficiaries to agree with what NGOs already intend to do. In many instances, NGOs just consult a few local people- usually in the form of “a meeting of grassroots activists for the poor”- to get the project approved (Petras & Veltmeyer, 2001: 132). In addition, not all articulated inputs and demands of beneficiaries are incorporated into the project. Only those fitting into the conditions and objectives set beforehand are accepted and included (Najam, 1996; Craig & Porter, 1997; Smillie & Hailey, 2001). As presented above, even in instances where beneficiaries are included in the development process, the quality of their participation is often unsatisfactory that they are unable to express real ‘voice’; beneficiaries are oftentimes co-opted and manipulated by NGOs. Against this background, therefore, beneficiaries need to be ‘meaningfully’ engaged in the development process in order to hold NGOs
−185−
Strengthening NGO Accountability through Beneficiary Participation: accountable in terms of responding to their needs and priorities. Then, the question remains: what constitutes ‘meaningful’ participation? Albeit a renowned and mainstream mantra, participation is yet righteously conceived and practiced by a good deal of development actors, including NGOs, themselves a vigorous advocate for it (as evidenced throughout the literature revised here and elsewhere). Its both misuses and abuses are particularly apparent in the development arena concerning the vulnerable and marginalized- the poor. Effective or meaningful participation per se is still vague and random in the current conception and practice. Following an attempt of definition, the section below conceptualizes ‘meaningful’ participation from three differential, but inter-woven, frontiers: dimensions, forms and mechanisms.
3. What ‘Meaningful’ Participation Entails: A Conceptual Framework 3.1. Definition of Participation Participation is variably defined, with widely differing conceptions based on dissimilar political, ideological and economic interests and perspectives. One of the commonly applied definitions is: ”...a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives, decisions and resources which affect them” (World Bank, 1994: 1). This definition emphasizes exerting influence and sharing control over critical aspects of the development process. Related to this concept, the preceding review of beneficiary involvement in NGOs’ development work reflects three dimensions in the process of participation. The first is ‘to what extent?’, because engagement in implementation is insufficient to influence decision-making; the second is ‘who participates?’, since communities are heterogeneous; and the third is ‘when to participate?’, as the phase in which beneficiaries are included matters their ability to bargain within the process.
3.2. Dimensions of Participation In this regard, Fowler (2000: 22-23) addresses the dimension of ‘to what extent?’ as “depth” of participation, ‘who participates?’ as “breadth” and ‘when to participate?’ as “timing”. Fowler’s assessment of the three dimensions of participation is as follows: (1) Depth, which is a measure of stakeholders’ influence on decision-making. (2) Breadth, which refers to the range of stakeholders involved, whose views and actions must be taken into account; and (3) Timing, which relates to the stage of the process at which stakeholders are engaged. What is of essence in Fowler’s analysis is a balanced combination of these three dimensions of participation in the development process, which counts equal significance on each of them. Specifically, Fowler states that the intensity of ownership and commitment of participants is determined by the way the three aspects are approached and made to interact. Insufficient depth can result in
−186−
complacency or passive cooperation. When breadth is inadequate, decision-making becomes too dependent on a few participants and their interests. The timing of involvement influences the quality and soundness of negotiation. Inappropriate timing, or late inclusion of stakeholders, leads to “perceptions of tokenism, co-optation, disrespect and disempowerment” (p.22). Fowler continues that a well-functioning participation framework balances depth, breadth and timing in an active way based on local conditions. It is counter-productive once all aspects of participation become ‘lopsided’. Hence, we finally can conclude that participation processes should be time-sensitive and not cause a significant imbalance between depth and breadth. Then, how do we know whether depth and breadth are balanced? This question will depend on both forms and mechanisms of participation applied in the process.
3.3. Forms of Participation Participation can take on multiple forms and serve many differential interests. It is of vital importance to precisely distinguish what these forms and interests are, for conceptual and practical ambiguity of participation can lead on to its misuses and abuses. White (1996) establishes four forms of participation: (1) The first form is nominal, when communities are included in the development process only for tokenistic display, without any operational function. This form of token involvement is created to show a level of superficial participation to external agencies, or it can be used to legitimize outsiders’ decisions. (2) The second form is instrumental, through which participants contribute resources (i.e., material, cash, information, labor or time). Its function serves as a means to an end, resulting in efficiency and effectiveness of development projects because of local commitment and ownership produced by the contribution. (3) The third form is representative, where a certain group within the community gains leverage and influence and is therefore able to express its own interests and make its needs visible in the process. And (4) The fourth- and the strongest- form is transformative, in which people find ways to consider options, make decisions and take actions on their own terms, without external influence or dominance. This sort of participation functions as both a means to an end and an end in itself; its standpoint holds that besides resulting in better projects, fostering people’s confidence and ability to determine how to refine their own socio-economic well-being is the true centerpiece of development. These forms of participation unfold some reflections associated with Fowler’s dimensions of depth and breadth. Concerning breadth, the representative form could be the case of control and influence by local elite as presented earlier. Regarding depth, the nominal form presents vacuum participation,
−187−
Strengthening NGO Accountability through Beneficiary Participation: offering a nil quality of contribution. As the term itself denotes, it is merely in the name of participation, without any active substance and thus any depth. On the contrary, the instrumental and
transformative forms do comprise depth of participation, as participants are able to contribute, make decisions and act independently. But, the depth of transformative participation is likely to be relatively deeper than that of the instrumental one since the former allows opportunities for decision-making and influence-exerting, while the latter may provide fewer opportunities for this although participants do contribute something.
3.4. Mechanisms of Participation Related to forms of participation is how to involve concerned subjects- the process of participation. As diverse as its concepts, participatory approaches and methods for engaging stakeholders are very varied, depending mainly on types of projects, development contexts and the quality of relationships between actors. The World Bank (1994: 12) delineates six mechanisms employed in its project and policy work to facilitate participation: (1) Information-sharing, which makes information available to local stakeholders such as through media, seminars, presentations and public meetings; (2) Consultation, in which local stakeholders provide information at different stages such as through consultative meetings, and field visits and interviews; (3) Joint assessment, which engages relevant stakeholders in analyzing local situations and the potential project by utilizing such methods as participatory assessment and evaluation, and beneficiary assessment; (4) Shared decision-making, which enables stakeholders to influence on project design by allowing them to partake in planning, discussion and determination of positions, priorities and roles, and to make revisions and agreements on issues relative to the project. This would be done through workshops, retreats, meetings and public reviews; (5) Collaboration , in which stakeholders hold a principal role in and responsibility for project implementation such as through joint committees, working groups and task forces; and (6) Empowerment, which relates to capacity-building of stakeholders that would enable them to develop and manage their own initiatives; and eventually they would contribute more effectively to the project. Premised upon White’s forms of participation identified previously, the first three mechanisms contain some instrumental aspect, while the last three view participation as transformative. Moreover, these mechanisms present a weak-to-strong continuum in terms of ‘depth’ as measured by Fowler above (i.e., ‘influence on decision-making’). (This confirms the earlier observation, which notices that the depth of transformative participation is likely to be relatively deeper than that of the instrumental
−188−
one). In many ways, the first three mechanisms, which promote joint learning and stakeholder inputs, lay the groundwork for the final three which generate more active and meaningful participation in terms of enabling ‘influence and shared control’ over development initiatives, decisions and resources. Somehow, the first three categories do not in themselves fulfill the progressive concept of participation, for information exchange does not necessarily mean genuine ‘influence and shared control’ over these critical elements.
3.5. A ‘ Meaningful’ Participation Framework Drawing upon the above analyses of dimensions, forms and mechanisms of participation, we suggest that a ‘meaningful’ participation framework in the development process would compose: (1) Both instrumental and transformative mechanisms of participation; and (2) An appropriate balance among depth, breadth and timing of participation.
4. Research Hypothesis Grounding on the literature review and conceptual framework, we hypothesize that ability of beneficiaries to hold NGOs accountable in terms of responding to their needs and interests in the process of participation could be determined by two factors: (1) depth and timing of their participation, and (2) their individual characteristics4 (e.g., wealth, position, sex and so forth).
5. Methodology and Context of the Study The research question of the study was explored through a synthetic analysis of case studies on two Cambodian NGOs’ development projects, utilizing a quantitative-qualitative integrated approach. Semi-structured and open-ended interviews were held with project managers and beneficiaries. In furtherance of the interviews, project-site observations and informal talks with relevant stakeholders (namely, village heads, and village development committee ‘VDC’ chiefs and members) were also conducted in the field5. Beneficiary semi-structured responses were analyzed quantitatively, employing inferring statistical tools of bivariate correlation and multiple regression. Factual and perceptual data derived from the open-ended beneficiary responses, project managers interviews, on-site observations and informal talks were analyzed qualitatively in accordance with a technique of content analysis6. The qualitative analyses had a purpose to lend a validating corroboration to the quantitative findings where appropriate.
5.1. Synopsis of Organizational and Project Characteristics of the NGOs Case Studied The two NGOs under study were selected from the directory of Cambodian NGOs 2000-2001 (CCC, 2000) based on their vision, mission and background of program activities. As summarized in Table 1, they were small-sized organizations executing small-scaled development projects within limited areas.
−189−
Strengthening NGO Accountability through Beneficiary Participation:
Table 1: Summary Organizational and Project Characteristics of the NGOs Case Studied NGOs Organizational Characteristics Project Characteristics KAWP Krom Akphiwat Phum (KAWP) The project case studied is one of 5 components included literally means ‘a group for in the present program phase. Called ‘Project for the , the project aims to reduce marginalization of developing villages’ . Established in Very Poor’ Battambang in 1993, KAWP has 12 the very poor by building their confidence and capacity core staff and is currently working to access resources through greater participation in with 33 communities in 24 villages village associations. The project covers 62 direct of 11 communes in 6 districts beneficiaries/families (24 males and 38 females) in 12 throughout the province. This NGO villages across the 6 districts. In each village an is in the course of their fourth association of average 5 ‘very poor’ members/families integrated program phase (2002- selected among the villagers was organized. Many of the 2004). (Each program phase spans 3 very poor families were marginal beneficiaries of or 4 years of relevant activities previous programs, some of whom both physically and needed to be undertaken to socially excluded. Besides being trained in community improve the conditions of the development and organizing and agriculture (gardening villages economically and socially). and farming), the beneficiaries have been provided with The program* is being financed vegetable seeds, fruit plants, animals (piglets and/or with an amount of approximately poultry) and gardening tools, among other necessary 500,000 US$, including overheads; of materials. Moreover, all were given‘food for work’(rice) which almost 10% is from the to dig a family pond nearby their house plot for raising NGO’s discretionary endowment fish and watering home gardens; and a few, without own home or rice land, were bought a piece of land for and local funding sources. building a house/cottage or for farming. Within their associations, the beneficiaries also do savings for future own use and as they have to pay back in the long run costs of animals or land given to them. AS
Aphivat Strey (AS) literally means ’ develop women’ . Localized in 1996 from Oxfam GB’s community development project (which started in 1991) in two villages in Battambang, AS is manned with 4 staff and 6 volunteers and is presently operating in three villages of a commune. In the third integrated program phase (20012003) (each phase spans 2 or 3 years), the NGO is currently undertaking 6 projects in the three villages. The program* is being assisted with totally external funding of around 100,000 US$, incorporating administrative costs.
The case studied project, ‘Agriculture Project’, is intended to improve the living conditions of 60 direct beneficiaries/families (22 males and 38 females) in two of the three villages, particularly to enable them to attain food security throughout the year. Most of the families are returnees repatriated from Thai border camps and resettled in the villages since 1992 or 1993, and were beneficiaries of preceding programs who seemed to be left out in the process. The beneficiaries have been trained in agriculture (gardening and farming) and provided with rice and vegetable seeds, fruit plants, animals (piglets, cows and/or poultry) and gardening tools, along with other necessary items. Furthermore, many were given‘food for work’(rice) to dig a family pond and irrigating canals around their house plot for raising fish and watering home gardens; and a few, without rice land, were bought a piece of farming land. The beneficiaries have to pay back in the long term costs of animals or land offered to them.
Note: *These two programs, matter-of-factly, were built on existing communities captured in earlier programs of the respective organizations. Source: Based upon the interviews held with the project managers of the two organizations, KAWP (2001) and AS (2001).
The projects examined were both in the stage of implementation and contained certain common characteristics- i.e., beneficiary involvement, focus on the marginalized and disadvantaged, material and technical provision, and agriculture in nature. Somehow, the beneficiaries of KAWP were organized into groups whereas those of AS were engaged in the project individually. Three essential reasons served the purpose of opting the organizations and projects for examination. First, the organizations were typical of Cambodian NGOs in terms of organizational (i.e., both human and financial) resources and program coverage7. Second, the projects possessed both developmental and participative aspects. Finally, the ongoing of the projects provided a crucial circumstance for observing participating activities of the beneficiaries. Nonetheless, diverse grades of
−190−
beneficiary participation should be foreseen across the cases, in spite of these invariabilities.
5.2. Participants Interviewed In total, three managers (i.e., two of KAWP and one of AS) and seventy-five beneficiaries (i.e., 32 of
KAWP and 43 of AS, which is approximately 62% of the sum population) of the two projects were interviewed8 (see Table 2). Random sampling method was applied to choose the subjects for the beneficiary interviews. In the case of KAWP, the sampling procedure involved two steps. First, six of the twelve target villages were randomly selected. Then, the sample was chosen at random among the beneficiaries in the six villages. In the AS project, the sample was randomly opted from the beneficiaries in the two target villages. The objective of the random sampling was to capture a variety of beneficiary characteristics and therefore to minimize bias in demanding ability among both beneficiary populations. However, as the bulk of each beneficiary population were women, most of the samples were females (i.e., 87.50% of KAWP and 72.10% of AS). The interviews were recorded verbatim; and where taping was impermissible for the sake of discretion, extensive notes were taken9. Particular attention was paid to dealing with semi-structured beneficiary questions. Extra relevant explanations and examples were provided when asking the subjects to do ordinal scales on the statements. This allowed the respondents to wholly grasp both the statements and scalings prior to rating and reasoning their answers. Table 2: Numbers of Project Managers and Beneficiaries Interviewed Project Managers Interviewed
Project Beneficiaries Sample Interviewed Population M（% of Male F（% of Female Total（% of M*** F*** Total M F Total Population） Population） Population） 4（ 16.66） 28（ 73.68） 32 KAWP** 1 1 2 24 38 62 （12.50）* （87.50）* （51.66） 12（ 54.54） 31（ 81.57） 43 AS 0 1 1 22 38 60 （27.90）* （72.10）* （71.66） 16 59 75 Total 1 2 3 46 76 122 （34.78） （77.63） （61.47） KAWP , the two project managers were interviewed Note: * indicates percentage of the respective sample; **: For together; ***: M denotes male, while F stands for female. NGOs
5.3. Instruments and Measurement Based on the literature review and conceptual framework, four multiple-item variables were established and asked in the beneficiary interviews (see the beneficiary interview questionnaire in Appendix 3). The variables included beneficiary contribution, participation, accountability- demanding ability and participation outcome. Beneficiary contribution was measured in terms of devoting information, labor, material, time and money to the projects by the beneficiaries. Participation was assessed by the levels of engagement by the beneficiaries in six mechanisms afore-illustrated: information sharing, consultation, joint assessment, shared decision making, collaboration and
−191−
Strengthening NGO Accountability through Beneficiary Participation: empowerment. Accountability-demanding ability was evaluated by the ability of the beneficiaries in doing the following: (1) obtaining information relevant to the NGOs’ resources and activities; (2) analyzing the information and based on the analysis demanding the NGOs for explanation and justification of their actions; and (3) eliciting appropriate responses from the NGOs. Finally, participation outcome was appraised through awareness of participation rights and roles, project ownership and commitment, and needs and interests satisfaction by the beneficiaries. All items were rated with a 6-point scale ranging from 0 (= not at all) to 5 (= very much). A number of beneficiary background variables10 were also formulated from the responses. They comprised: (1) Age of the participant, taking a value of 1 for those who were or were below 45 years old, 2 for those over 45 years old; (2) Number of children living with (1 = less than or equal to 3; 2 = more than 3). We used the number of children living with the participant, not the total number of children the participant had, as some participants had children staying away from home, working in the provincial towns or in other provinces. (3) Education (1 = no schooling; 2 = with schooling). Schooling experience included informal, short- and long-term literacy courses. (4) Organizational affiliation (1 = no; 2 = yes). For KAWP participants, organizational affiliation meant they or their family members belonged or belong to groups other than their own associations, such as credit/saving groups, cow/rice banks, agriculture associations, and healthcare associations. For
AS participants, organizational affiliation implied they or their family members belonged or belong to such groups/associations. And, (5) Wealth which composed: farming land (1 = no; 2 = yes), number of livestock (i.e., the total crude number of cattle, poultry, pigs and other animals), number of materials (i.e., the total crude number of bikes, bicycles, rice mills and other machines), and average annual income (i.e., the raw number of Riels per year). To test the research hypothesis, a three-step multivariate analysis was conducted. First, the process of participation of each project was assessed by generically discussing its depth, breadth and timing. Correlation analyses were run among beneficiary contribution, participation, accountabilitydemanding ability and participation outcome to see if the depth of participation was effective/ meaningful. Moreover, the quantity and backgrounds of the participants were examined to analyze the breadth of participation. Lastly, the stage when the beneficiaries started to get involved in the projects was considered for the timing of participation. Second, multiple regression analyses were performed among mechanisms of beneficiary participation and accountability-demanding ability and participation outcome to see which participation mechanisms most influenced accountability-demanding ability and therefore participation
−192−
outcome of the beneficiaries. Third, the beneficiary background variables were introduced as ‘controls’ in the multiple regression analyses among mechanisms of beneficiary participation and accountability-demanding ability and participation outcome to see how these control variables impacted on the associations between the independent and dependent variables.
6. Empirical Findings and Discussion 6.1. The Process of Participation Tables 3a and 3b exhibit positive correlation coefficients among the levels of contribution, participation, accountability-demanding ability and participation outcome of each beneficiary sample. Also, the elements of participation (i.e., information sharing, consultation, joint assessment, shared decision making, collaboration and empowerment) and accountability-demanding ability (i.e., access to information, information analysis and placing demands, and elicitation of responses) were positively Table 3a: Correlations among Levels of Beneficiary Contribution, Participation, Accountability-Demanding Ability and Participation Outcome (KAWP: n=32) Variables 1. Contribution 2. Participation 2.1. Information sharing 2.2. Consultation 2.3. Joint assessment 2.4. Shared decision making 2.5. Collaboration 2.6. Empowerment 3. Accountability-demanding ability 3.1. Access to information 3.2. Information analysis & placing demands 3.3. Elicitation of responses 4. Participation outcome Note: *: p
